You are here

Archived: Highgrove House Residential Care Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 25 August 2016

This inspection took place on the 7 June 2016 and it was unannounced.

Highgrove House is a residential care home that is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for 20 people. At the time of our inspection 18 older people were living at the home some of whom had physical disabilities.

Highgrove House is situated in Worthing in close proximity to shops and the seafront. It is a spacious home, attractively decorated, maintained to a high standard and suitably designed to meet the needs of the people living there. The atmosphere was friendly and inviting. Pictures hung on the walls and ornaments placed in the communal areas added to a homely environment. Bedrooms are spread out over two floors and all have en-suite facilities. For people who do not have a shower or bath in their bedrooms there are easily accessible communal bathrooms available. Communal areas included a lounge area and a large dining room. The conservatory offers an additional space for people to sit or eat their meals if they so wish. The home also offers a well-kept garden which some people enjoyed using.

The home had a registered manager who had been in post since 2010. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The provider was also available throughout the inspection.

People told us and our observations confirmed that Highgrove House provided a safe service. Accidents and incidents were responded to by staff without delay and the appropriate medical professionals were contacted for advice and support when required. However we found one incident, where a medicine error had occurred had not been escalated and reported to the local safeguarding team for their review. We made a recommendation to the provider so that the appropriate action was taken to ensure all future incidents are reported to the local safeguarding authority and the Care Quality Commission about any incidents of potential abuse to people. All other aspects of medicines were managed safely.

There was sufficient staff that had been trained in how to recognise signs of potential abuse and protected people from harm. Risks to people had been identified and assessed and information was provided to staff on how to care for people safely and mitigate any risks.

Staff were provided with regular training and supervision which enabled them to become skilled and knowledgeable and meet the needs of people living at the home. Staff told us they received consistent and continuous support from their managers.

Staff understood the requirements under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and about people’s capacity to make decisions. They also understood the associated legislation under Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and restrictions to people’s freedom.

Additional drinks and snacks were observed being offered in between meals and staff knew people’s preferences and choices of where and what they liked to eat.

Staff had developed meaningful relationships with people and demonstrated a caring approach.

People received personalised care. Care plans reflected information relevant to each individual and provided clear guidance to staff on how to meet people’s needs. There was a complaints policy in place. All complaints were treated seriously and were managed in line with this policy.

People were provided with opportunities to give their views about the care they received from the home through various means such as care plan reviews and resident meetings. Some people chose to use these opportunities to become more involved with their care and treatment. Relatives were also encouraged to give their feedback on how they viewed the service and where necessary support with the reviewing of the care plans alongside more senior staff.

Staff knew their role and their responsibilities including how people must be support. A range of quality audit processes overseen by the registered manager were in place to measure the overall quality of the service provided to people. The managers were committed to providing a high standard of care.

Inspection areas


Requires improvement

Updated 25 August 2016

One aspect of the service was not always safe.

One incident of potential abuse involving a medicine error was not reported to the local safeguarding team for their review. All other aspects of medicine care were managed safely.

Risks to people were identified and assessments drawn up so that staff knew how to care for people safely and mitigate any risks.

There were sufficient staff to meet people�s needs.

People and their relatives said they felt safe and comfortable with the staff



Updated 25 August 2016

The service was effective.

People�s care needs were managed effectively by a knowledgeable and skilled staff team that were able to meet people�s individual needs.

Supervisions, appraisals and training were routinely offered and attended by staff.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink.

Consent to care and treatment was sought in line with legislation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

The service had built positive links with health care professionals to support people in maintaining good health.



Updated 25 August 2016

The service was caring.

People were supported by kind, friendly and caring staff who knew them well.

People were given opportunities to be involved and supported to express their views on how they wished to be cared for.

Staff promoted people�s dignity and respected their privacy.



Updated 25 August 2016

Care records were personalised and individual to the person.

Choices were offered to people with regards to activities.

The staff team and the registered manager responded quickly to complaints and issues to improve the quality of the service.

People knew who to go to raise a concern and felt able to do so.



Updated 25 August 2016

The service was well-led.

The culture of the home was open, positive and friendly. The staff team cared about the quality of the care they provided.

People and staff knew who the registered manager and provider were and felt confident in approaching them.

An overview of the quality of care provided was overseen by the registered manager.